Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely Rackham must take some of the blame for the failure of AT-43. I don't see why an distributor would cease to sell a game that was selling well, and if they did, wouldn't another distributor take it up?

And all the blame for Confrontacion going down in flames as well, that had nothing to do with FFG.

Obviously I don't know what went behind the scenes, and I won't pretend it was all peachy with Rackham, but their selling off of remaining stock at 50%+ when Rackham was still selling at full price didn't help those games. It only made the players believe the figures were worth only as much as FFG sold them for and didn't buy from Rackham anymore. The company would've gone under anyway, but I'm of a firm belief that FFG sped that up. I don't know what the agreement between the parties was, but when you cease distribution of a product, you don't do it in a way that permanently sours the market for other distributors as well as the manufacturer.

They dropped every miniatures game they had at some point, even Dust, which was arguably selling well. I wouldn't trust them with another miniatures game myself.

They seem to be doing all right with X Wing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They seem to be doing all right with X Wing.

And I think I don't need to explain why that is.

I think X-Wing poses a huge threat to GW market share in the medium term, particularly when combined with a huge increase in good systems and models out there for other ranges.

I picked up X-Wing a few months ago and have already spent about £200 on it without blinking. The game is good fun, it provides enormous satisfaction in short time and feels like starship dogfighting should be. The fact that I can (and have) play it with everyone from regular tabletop opponents through to RPG but non tabletop players and then finally my wife who has no gaming interest but loved it, tells me that FFG have a product which can easily transcend boundaries.

X-Wing is a system which I have got unbelievably excited about and one which is sucking funds out of my wallet that previously could have gone GWs way. The secret in my view is instant playability. I was in my FLGS the other week playing at an X-Wing night and watched as two people came in, liked what they saw and then bought a set each and just started playing. That is how easy it is for FFG to make money now - instant gratification with a first rate system.

weeble1000 wrote:
It means FFG doesn't need GW, doesn't care about GW, and will happily let other products eclipse GW.

"In terms of continuity, we’ve been very happy to work with Lucasfilm; frankly they are a great licensor (and I don’t say that because I have to)."

In other words, GW is a terrible licensor and I'm much happier working with Star Wars, and making a lot more money. In fact, Star Wars is a much better license than LoTR, so, Hey GW, go feth yourselves! Oh, and a little salt in the wound for you, our LoTR LCG is doing GREAT!

This is like someone interviewing Obama about US diplomatic and trade relationships to Mexico and Obama assuring just how great they are, and interpreting it that what Obama really said is that he hates Canada and wants to nuke the entire country.

Seriously, X-wing is a nice game and all (and relatively bug-free compared to GW games, or most other FFG games!), but I think people are getting rather overexcited about it taking over the world and putting GW out of business. It's not really a game which you could build a 'hobby' around unlike tabletop wargames, with small number of pre-painted models available. Also, I think people are more than slightly optimistic if they think that it's just a small step from X-Wing to jump into 28mm Star Wars tabletop game. Latter would take much larger investment than a space fighter game. Not saying they can't or won't do it, but it's a much bigger risk.

Yeah, somehow coming to the conclusion that FFG "doesn't care about GW" because they talked about Star Wars in an interview is about as big a leap of logic I can stomach today.

I don't know. FFG has released dozens of 40K RPG books over the years and I've been led to believe they were big sellers, some of their top RPG books, in fact. If it was a successful partnership, I figure they would've mentioned it at least in passing.

Hasn't the pace winded down for 40K RPG's lately? I don't know, I don't follow it all that closely.

FFG is putting out the expansion for Relic in a couple months, and the new 40K LCG. GW is still a big license for them, but nowhere near as big as SW is, which is/should be clear to everyone. Did they spell out that GW is a huge license? No. But those of us who love FFG know that it is. Do we, as intelligent human beings, know that the name Star Wars is larger than Warhammer? God, I hope so. If you don't, please crawl back under your rock.

I can say that I appreciate what FFG has done, and I buy their products all the time and don't buy from GW anymore. I still buy GW licensed material from FFG, in fact I've bought all of it except the RPG stuff. But FFG is, for me, the bigger fish at this point. And to my friends back home, it's the same way-FFG gets bought up by the ton, GW only by the pound. We find it to be a more enjoyed company with products that we approve of more, and we show that by offering up the almighty-dollar.

This is as bad as politics. You have the super extreme views on both sides (X-wing sales doesn't affect GW business and X-wing will kill GW) that are from wildly critical people with zero sense, and then the moderate view that X-wing is...factually speaking...taking money from away from games that GW owns.

Sorry to say, but GW isn't going anywhere soon. It is in a slump, and it may be for some time or even forever. But it still sells product...a solid amount of it.

Also sorry to say, but X-wing has taken some of the market share from GW sales as well. They aren't a direct game competitor, but as they are both miniature games and both sold through the same avenues...saying X-wings success doesn't hinder GW is just as foolish as saying it'll kill GW.

Did someone in this thread actually say X wing would kill GW? I thought it was primarily a discussion of how they're competing products. I would say that X wing has had an affect on GWs bottom line as evidenced by the overall growth in hobby spending while GW has seen a retraction in sales.

I think the issue about "killing GW" is less to do with X-Wing and more to do with a prospective 28mm SW game.

 agnosto wrote:
I thought it was primarily a discussion of how they're competing products.

It was primarily a discussion about how Chris Petersen talking about their Star Wars license in an interview was somehow indicative of FFG not caring about GW. A logical leap if ever there was one.

FFG certainly cares about its GW licenses. Why would they not? I think the question is, between SW and GW, which would they choose if they had to?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
I thought it was primarily a discussion of how they're competing products.

It was primarily a discussion about how Chris Petersen talking about their Star Wars license in an interview was somehow indicative of FFG not caring about GW. A logical leap if ever there was one.

And this is news to you? Forgive my naivety, but I was under the impression you had been posting on dakka for years!

Back OT. There seems to be an impression that a sale for X-Wing is an assault on GW's bottom line. But what if you're awkward? What if, like me, you can go into a FLGS with enough money to buy GW stuff and X-wing? Bet nobody thought of that!

 Manchu wrote:
FFG certainly cares about its GW licenses. Why would they not? I think the question is, between SW and GW, which would they choose if they had to?

Presumably SW, just like every other person on the planet, including Tom Kirby and Jervis Johnson. I mean, is it really a question?

We got a little off track because I argued that x-wing really isn't in direct competition with GW products. I still don't think they are, but we moved into a semantics competition about how anything slotted for your "entertainment" or "hobby" budget compete with each other. For me, x-wing doesn't occupy the same hobby space as other unpainted miniatures games do. And I'm apparently in the minority with that.

I think it's naive to think that people aren't spending dollars on x-wing that they used to on GW product. My point was simply that I don't believe people that are looking for miniatures wargames are looking at x-wing with 40k or Warmahordes or infinity or Malifaux. To me, x wing resides in the board game market.

 judgedoug wrote:
Prediction
FFG will release a 28mm Star Wars miniatures game which will dominate sales

Prediction 2
...and within 5 years FFG will own a controlling share of Games Workshop.

Will they do pre-paints like in X-wing?

Thay have some experience thanks to Dust: Tactics/Warfare but they decided to sell that line off.

I was obviously being hyperbolic in my post interpreting the FFG CEO's statements in the interview.

But FFG is clearly winding down its involvement with GW. FFG has had GW licensed products in the pipeline, but do you think any of those products the CEO mentioned were being extensively developed in 2013 are GW licensed products? I doubt it very much.

GW's licensing revenue was down in the last financial report, even though we know GW has been pulling in license revenue from spamming tablet game licenses. We know also that GW is very restrictive with its IP, very difficult to negotiate with, and likes to exploit its hold over those financially dependent on their relationship with GW. That is, we know GW is not a good licensor.

FFG is funneling resources into lots of products that have no relationship to GW. Those products have been very successful. We know GW is very jealous and resentful of competition. FFG is growing closer and closer to substantive, threatening direct competition with GW.

It is not much of a leap to imagine that FFG would prefer to sever its relationship with GW and even less of a leap to imagine that such a relationship, if it was ever amiable, is growing very sour.

In short, I don't say things off of the cuff to be inflammatory. Take a minute to appreciate the context. Look at the big picture before you dismiss peoples' opinions as irrational.

I'm more interested in what producing 28mm SW miniatures, fully assembled and painted or otherwise, would mean for FFG's relationship with GW. I cannot imagine GW could tolerate that because it obviously would hurt GW very badly. Given FFG has committed itself to a second edition of Dark Heresy, I don't think we'll see a line of 28mm SW miniatures from FFG anytime soon.

Which is a shame. FFG is doing much more exciting things with its SW products than its GW-licensed products. For example, FFG will never be able to release miniatures for GW IPs (as with Relic).

 Manchu wrote:
I'm more interested in what producing 28mm SW miniatures, fully assembled and painted or otherwise, would mean for FFG's relationship with GW. I cannot imagine GW could tolerate that because it obviously would hurt GW very badly. Given FFG has committed itself to a second edition of Dark Heresy, I don't think we'll see a line of 28mm SW miniatures from FFG anytime soon.

Which is a shame. FFG is doing much more exciting things with its SW products than its GW-licensed products. For example, FFG will never be able to release miniatures for GW IPs (as with Relic).

I disagree. FFG had Dust: Tactics/Warfare which was also in direct competition with GW and they also had their current GW licensing at the same time. So we already have that precedent set.

Now people could argue that since a SW line of miniatures would be a much bigger treat to GW than Dust ever was, if FFG started to produce something like that GW could withdraw the license, but at that point that would be a much bigger loss to GW than it would be for FFG, IMHO.

Is FFG even allowed to make 28mm models per their license? For some reason I think they can't as part of their agreement.

The press release would seem to indicate they can.

I guess I don't see where you're drawing the conclusion that the FFG-GW partnership is "winding down". Especially with conquest on the horizon, which is going to sell a ton of copies.

PhantomViper wrote:
I disagree. FFG had Dust: Tactics/Warfare which was also in direct competition with GW and they also had their current GW licensing at the same time. So we already have that precedent set.

As you concede, a relatively obscure alternate history miniatures game like DUST is hardly comparable with SW. Why even bring it up?

It's hard to say how important licensing revenue from FFG is to GW or how important GW licensed products are to FFG. But a 28mm SW game would certainly eat into GW's market share and the only leverage GW has on FFG is its licenses.

One argument is, no matter how much GW-licensed product FFG sells it cannot compare with how much SW-licensed product they are selling and could sell. The dramatic impact of X-Wing seems to support this. It doesn't help that GW gives the current impression of imploding.

As judgedoug mentioned above, the idea of FFG (or a company like FFG) owning GW sometime in the future is not unbelievable. Personally, I look forward to it.

 cincydooley wrote:
Is FFG even allowed to make 28mm models per their license? For some reason I think they can't as part of their agreement.

If you mean per the GW license, the reason you think that (and you are correct) is probably Relic. If you recall, FFG had to put out character busts as player tokens rather than the usual Talisman-style 28mm figure.

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
I disagree. FFG had Dust: Tactics/Warfare which was also in direct competition with GW and they also had their current GW licensing at the same time. So we already have that precedent set.

As you concede, a relatively obscure alternate history miniatures game like DUST is hardly comparable with SW. Why even bring it up?

Because it seems to negate the supposition that FFG as any clause in its GW licensing contract that prohibits them to produce products that compete directly with GW (in other licenses).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Is FFG even allowed to make 28mm models per their license? For some reason I think they can't as part of their agreement.

The press release would seem to indicate they can.

I guess I don't see where you're drawing the conclusion that the FFG-GW partnership is "winding down". Especially with conquest on the horizon, which is going to sell a ton of copies.

The only evidence of any "winding down" that I see personally is the recent cancelling by FFG of the Warhammer LCG. But that doesn't really mean anything.

PhantomViper wrote:
Because it seems to negate the supposition that FFG as any clause in its GW licensing contract that prohibits them to produce products that compete directly with GW (in other licenses).

A supposition no one has made.

PhantomViper wrote:
The only evidence of any "winding down" that I see personally is the recent cancelling by FFG of the Warhammer LCG.

And RPG.

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Because it seems to negate the supposition that FFG as any clause in its GW licensing contract that prohibits them to produce products that compete directly with GW (in other licenses).

A supposition no one has made.

My apologies, I misinterpreted your "GW would not tolerate" comment as if you were talking about a legal contractual issue.

Their relationship is not just a set of contractual provisions. Of course, the GW license could have been renegotiated since FFG netted the SW license. In which case, if I were representing GW, I would try to negotiate for a "no SW in 28mm" clause. And even if I couldn't get it, I would be very clear that if FFG went ahead with that product line then it would severely endanger their relationship with GW.

It would need to done like a Japanese contract.

 cincydooley wrote:
I guess I don't see where you're drawing the conclusion that the FFG-GW partnership is "winding down". Especially with conquest on the horizon, which is going to sell a ton of copies.

I get the impression from the amount of relative attention FFG has been paying to GW licensed products. FFG is not pumping out 40K RPG supplements like it used to, and the GW licensed products are becoming ever smaller players in broad product categories. Sure, FFG is putting out a 40K LCG, but FFG also has a LoTR LCG, a Game of Thrones LCG, a Cthulu LCG, and a Star Wars LCG in addition to Netrunner.

FFG has been promoting the crap out of its Star Wars RPG some might certainly say preferentially over Only War.

"Winding down" may be too firm a phrase, but FFG is not deriving such a substantive chunk of its revenue from its GW licensed products as the company did in the past. FFG is not a company that makes 40K spinoff games anymore. It wasn't ever totally dependent on GW licensed products, but the GW licensed products have in the past been a much more significant part of FFG's image than today. FFG could burn all of its GW licensed products in a pyre today and still have a strong, diverse, well-known, well-respected, well-reviewed, and well-liked range of table top gaming products.

When you walk into the FLGS, the FFG brand usually appears across a hefty chunk of shelf space. A chunk of shelf space in which GW licensed products are an ever smaller proportion. FFG is on the shelf with the board games, on the shelf with the card games, on the shelf with the miniatures, and sitting next to the register with MtG products. Amidst some of that prime, coveted shelf space the Games Workshop logo can be found, but only if you are looking for it, and almost exclusively when the FFG logo is next to it.

Do you think that is a state of affairs that makes folks rest easy in Nottingham? If it isn't, what does GW have over FFG but the power of a license deal that gets a little bit less important to FFG every day? I know how folks like Andrew Jones handle such situations. I've seen it, and it aint pretty. If I was the FFG CEO, I expect I would be itching to tell Tom Kirby that nowadays he needs me a whole lot more than I need him, and that next to Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Battlestar Galactica, Cthulhu, Conan, Gears of War, and Star Wars, Warhammer isn't terribly impressive.

 Manchu wrote:

As judgedoug mentioned above, the idea of FFG (or a company like FFG) owning GW sometime in the future is not unbelievable. Personally, I look forward to it.

It would take some time. Though growing strongly, FFG is still just about one-fifth the size of GW.

Also, lots of people seem to be sure that 28mm Star Wars game is elephant in the room which is going to kill 40k. I don't think so. Sure, it would create buzz and probably be a success for at least some time, but in long term, it would run into same problem as LOTR: non-gaming universe is not really best suited for gaming fiction, and what looks good on a movie screen does not necessarily translate into visually impressive force on tabletop. GW had the chance to buy the license and didn't take it. If they had thought it was a sure-fire way to make money, I'm sure they would have.

Backfire wrote:
GW had the chance to buy the license and didn't take it. If they had thought it was a sure-fire way to make money, I'm sure they would have.

Nothing about how GW actually does business supports that claim.